calbear93 said:

---

Or saying raising minimum wage is making our economy strong. Then why not make minimum wage $100 or $200? The higher the better, right? What could go wrong? Can business afford it? In your mind, it's just additional money that will circulate so why not increase it? Of course you are going to say that there is a limit. Well, then isn't that the whole debate? What should be the limit. It isn't that higher minimum wage is always better. Shallow thinking.

---

Lol, the brain dead response, right on cue.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/120211/replies/2320356

Quote:

---

I'll just go ahead and add a paragraph to cut off the upcoming brain-dead counterpoint of why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $100 then. Economics is about finding balances. Right now, in America, just about everywhere you look the balance is tilted against workers / consumers so we can move in more favorable directions towards them

---

calbear93 said:

---

For example, you are against more housing because of traffic and resources but want more liberal policies for illegal immigrants, worry about affordability, wealth disparity, etc. That reveals such shallow thinking. You think the NIMBY attitude of the self proclaimed liberals and excess regulation on new development are not creating a lack of affordable housing? But you think everyone else should sacrifice to address but homeowners (maybe because you are a homeowner and you may actually have to sacrifice).

---

So, California housing. . .

Quote:

---

but want more liberal policies for illegal immigrants

---

You should admit you are wrong with this statement. At this point, I recognize that it is futile to ask you to stop making up strawman arguments against other people. It's kind of what you do.

Quote:

---

You think the NIMBY attitude of the self proclaimed liberals and excess regulation on new development are not creating a lack of affordable housing?

---

You should also admit this statement is wrong. It's kind of incomprehensible to me that somebody could read what I wrote about all the differing viewpoints and conflicting goals and then ascribe such a claim to me (but calbear93 and strawmen go together like peanut butter and jelly). Of course, NIMBY and regulation lead to higher prices.

Quote:

---

But you think everyone else should sacrifice to address but homeowners (maybe because you are a homeowner and you may actually have to sacrifice).

---

I read people complain about California all the time on these boards. I was born and raised in California and I am the one who moved out. Is that the kind of sacrifice you are talking about? I left California with negative net worth and zero asset ownership. I made money in suburban New Jersey and bought a rental property in California despite the lousy cap rates in California, because I know the demand to live in California and figured price appreciation would make it a good investment. I am less a California homeowner and more a California investor. I don't vote in California. I don't pay taxes in California. My home is in New Jersey.

My suburban New Jersey home is nice and bigger than my family needs and backs up against town woods. It would cost 2x - 3x as much in any desireable part of California. There is life outside of California. I have spent over 90% of my life in the suburbs. I don't really have NIMBY / YIMBY opinions for urban areas as I don't really get the draw of urban areas. Urban is not my thing. I don't want to live there and because I don't get it, I wouldn't want to invest there. I didn't relate well to living in Manhattan. I did relate well to living in Los Angeles but that is because L.A. is basically a big suburb. If I were still a Los Angeleno, why would I want to change the thing I like best about it? But I'm not a Los Angeleno.

I'm a New Jersey suburbanite and in my state - where I live and vote and pay taxes and where there is plenty of water (I have a big, green lawn, with deer visiting to graze daily, and I don't even have a sprinkler system) I support building more local housing. But I wouldn't support housing that changes the characteristic of our suburban community. Housing is complicated - even in New Jersey. But I've already made my California sacrifice.

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

My opinion: the disconnect between people's perception and statistics saying the economy is great isn't the result of some media narrative, it's that traditional measures for determining health of the economy are incomplete or invalid.

I have been commenting for some time that my own financial experience just doesn't make sense. Now I am seeing a young adult family member enter the workforce. FTE is very hard to find. You can get 2 PTE gigs at $18 per hour, 24 hours a week each. That equates to @44k annually. No benefits. 48 hour work weeks. 1 bedroom apartment can be had for @$1300. Car insurance, car payment, gas, phone, food, etc…it can be done but barely, with no future, no career track. Again, it just doesn't add up, something isn't right.

---

This is why I've argued several times in the past that the minimum wage needs to be raised. The economy needs people to work these minimum wage type jobs but those filling those jobs have a meager life style and no ability to cover things like medical bills and car repairs, etc. I generally get hooted down by the people around here that have few financial worries.

---

I've no doubt the continued strong national economy is due in part to blue states raising minimum wages. California minimum wage is currently $16.00 / hour - $20.00 / hour. I'm pretty sure tequila4kapp has opposed the Democrats who raised the minimum wage to those levels every step of the way. In addition to helping to boost retail sales and GDP and tequila4kapp's young family member's life, these higher minimum wages will also boost inflation somewhat as companies take some of those increases for themselves. That's what happens when people have some scratch in their pocket - they buy overpriced donuts. .

---

Of course you have "no doubt"…all the pieces of your narrative fit with your world view, as it does for all of us.

You completely overlook the parts where housing is too expensive. If this was a simple as allowing people to afford things there would be more housing built to normalize housing expenses. Interest rates may explain some of that - cost to build, cost to buy. But still, we might expect more inventory to enter the market as more businesses try to get their piece of this overpriced market, ultimately reducing pricing pressure. That hasn't happened.

You also overlook the part where employers are less willing to hire FTEs and provide them benefits, presumably because of expenses related to total compensation.

Our minimum wage has been tied to inflation for several years. Every January the price of everything goes up, as does the minimum wage. What's the value of increased wages when purchasing power remains relatively the same?

---

Bingo.

It's shocking to me that there are people here that actually walk around promoting such an oversimplistic view of reality. Their economic arguments are about as sophomoric as you can get. They present higher wages as a "cure-all" yet never address the fact that you highlight that purchasing power has remained relatively the same.

If your California minimum wage is now $16.00 it has increased 45% since 2018
If your California minimum wage is now $20.00 it has increased 82% since 2018

That is a real wage increase of about 19% and 56% respectively

Again, overlysimplistic.

How many full-time jobs have become "lost" because of those wage increases and turned into PT employment with no medical insurance benefits?

Those wages gains get largely wiped-out by a PT employee having to pay for their own health insurance.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

For example, you are against more housing because of traffic and resources but want more liberal policies for illegal immigrants, worry about affordability, wealth disparity, etc. That reveals such shallow thinking. You think the NIMBY attitude of the self proclaimed liberals and excess regulation on new development are not creating a lack of affordable housing? But you think everyone else should sacrifice to address but homeowners (maybe because you are a homeowner and you may actually have to sacrifice).

---

So, California housing. . .

Quote:

---

but want more liberal policies for illegal immigrants

---

You should admit you are wrong with this statement. At this point, I recognize that it is futile to ask you to stop making up strawman arguments against other people. It's kind of what you do.

Quote:

---

You think the NIMBY attitude of the self proclaimed liberals and excess regulation on new development are not creating a lack of affordable housing?

---

You should also admit this statement is wrong. It's kind of incomprehensible to me that somebody could read what I wrote about all the differing viewpoints and conflicting goals and then ascribe such a claim to me (but calbear93 and strawmen go together like peanut butter and jelly). Of course, NIMBY and regulation lead to higher prices.

Quote:

---

But you think everyone else should sacrifice to address but homeowners (maybe because you are a homeowner and you may actually have to sacrifice).

---

I read people complain about California all the time on these boards. I was born and raised in California and I am the one who moved out. Is that the kind of sacrifice you are talking about? I left California with negative net worth and zero asset ownership. I made money in suburban New Jersey and bought a rental property in California despite the lousy cap rates in California, because I know the demand to live in California and figured price appreciation would make it a good investment. I am less a California homeowner and more a California investor. I don't vote in California. I don't pay taxes in California. My home is in New Jersey.

My suburban New Jersey home is nice and bigger than my family needs and backs up against town woods. It would cost 2x - 3x as much in any desireable part of California. There is life outside of California. I have spent over 90% of my life in the suburbs. I don't really have NIMBY / YIMBY opinions for urban areas as I don't really get the draw of urban areas. Urban is not my thing. I don't want to live there and because I don't get it, I wouldn't want to invest there. I didn't relate well to living in Manhattan. I did relate well to living in Los Angeles but that is because L.A. is basically a big suburb. If I were still a Los Angeleno, why would I want to change the thing I like best about it? But I'm not a Los Angeleno.

I'm a New Jersey suburbanite and in my state - where I live and vote and pay taxes and where there is plenty of water (I have a big, green lawn, with deer visiting to graze daily, and I don't even have a sprinkler system) I support building more local housing. But I wouldn't support housing that changes the characteristic of our suburban community. Housing is complicated - even in New Jersey. But I've already made my California sacrifice.

---

Didn't need to read your life story and your property investments for the umpteenth time.

Based on your constant reminder, I already knew you lived in New Jersey. Wasn't talking about you specifically about how people in CA behave. Was talking about these suburban "liberal" hypocrites talking about how heartless conservatives are to the poor while their idea of compassion is suggesting taxing the other guys while protecting their property value and school ranking by ensuring affordable housing doesn't come near their neighborhood, and demanding under the name of environmental protection, overregulation that leads to greater and greater homelessness and human misery

So, no, I was not commenting on your real estate investment or your desire to live in CA. I was commenting on the below comment from you where you talk out of the both sides of your mouth and always think compassion should be extended through other people's sacrifice. You want to tax wealth for people richer than you because of wealth gap and then think - oh how inconvenient for people to have to share water as if people who are homeless or who don't have stable housing in CA don't use water. Just shallow thinking.

I'm not sure I think more housing in California is a good thing considering how overcrowded it is becoming and the lack of water, etc. That's not something I'd suggest as a political viewpoint or as something that is fair to the average Californian. Its not Biden's fault or Trump's fault or Newsom's fault or anybody's fault. I have sympathy for varying opinions on California housing. People moving out of the state of California is a good thing.

Seriously, you say it is not anyone's fault but then acknowledge that NIMBY and overregulation leads to lack of housing. ***?

At the end of the day, you don't believe in anything.

Don't remember if this was shared but came across this survey on how Americans feel about their personal economic situation. The answer is favorable for Biden.

Quote:

---

By the numbers: 63% of Americans rate their current financial situation as being "good," including 19% of us who say it's "very good."

Americans' outlooks for the future are also rosy. 66% think that 2024 will be better than 2023, and 85% of us feel we could change our personal financial situation for the better this year.

Stunning stat: 77% of Americans are happy with where they're living including renters, who have seen their housing costs surge over the last few years and are far more likely than homeowners to describe their financial situation as poor.

More than half of Americans say that if they lost their job tomorrow they'd be OK; that they could find an equivalent or better job quickly; and that "my employers need me more than I need them."

---

When you ask people how they think the overall economy is going or the direction the country is heading, they are far more negative, which I attribute to the media but it seems that most Americans think they personally are doing fine. Not a good sign for Trump (and the anti Biden leftists) in November.

The man who wrote this was born in 1949.

"What a good economy should look like

I just want to say a quick word about what a good economy is because it's been so long since we've had a good economy. You've got to be at least as old as I am to remember it. In a good economy business competes for people. There is a shortage of people to work for business. Everybody wants to hire you. They'll train you, whatever it takes. They hire students before they get out of school. You can change jobs if you want to because other companies are always trying to hire you. That's the way the economy is supposed to be but that's all turned around. For one reason, which I'll keep coming back to, the budget deficit is too small. As soon as they started tightening up on budget deficits many years ago, we transformed from a good economy where the people were the most important thing to what I call this 'crime against humanity' that we have today……

So what you do is you target full employment, because that's the kind of economy everybody wants to live in. And the right size deficit is whatever deficit corresponds to full employment"

Palestinian Chicken said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Your economic views don't have any coherence. One day you are posting links to Austrian economists who say deficits just cause inflation and the next day you are posting this. You just like to argue.

---

LOL, someone is still bitter because I showed him how little he knew about economics and has never gotten over it, so he had to pretend I believed in Austrian economics when actually I think the Austrian economic devotees have some of the dumbest views out there. Even dumber than you and that's saying something.

---

That's funny because you were literally linking to an Austrian economics website and posting their theories as facts even though it's the opposite of Bernie Sanders' views and the views you expressed in this thread.

PCE INDEX REPORT NOT GOOD.

+3.4% vs 1.8%
+3.7% CORE vs 2.0%

https://www.bea.gov/news/2024/gross-domestic-product-first-quarter-2024-advance-estimate#:~:text=The%20personal%20consumption%20expenditures%20(PCE,an%20increase%20of%202.0%20percent.

chazzed said:

---

A couple of wins for the American worker:

Two huge wins by Biden today that the corporate media will bury, while reporting every one of Donald's in-court gestures and out-of-court lies:

1. Biden just secured BILLIONS of dollars for workers. He's guaranteeing they get time-and-a-half for overtime worked – anyone who… pic.twitter.com/T5J7Gduhk6

— Mary L. Trump (@MaryLTrump) April 23, 2024

---

We don't want to hear about practical government that helps people because BIDEN LOOKS OLD!

Big C said:

---

chazzed said:

---

A couple of wins for the American worker:

Two huge wins by Biden today that the corporate media will bury, while reporting every one of Donald's in-court gestures and out-of-court lies:

1. Biden just secured BILLIONS of dollars for workers. He's guaranteeing they get time-and-a-half for overtime worked – anyone who… pic.twitter.com/T5J7Gduhk6

— Mary L. Trump (@MaryLTrump) April 23, 2024

---

We don't want to hear about practical government that helps people because BIDEN LOOKS OLD!

---

On the non-compete, it's the stupidest thing I ever heard something arguing that fast food workers were prevented from working for competitors. Really? Minimum wage workers are signing restrictive covenants requiring consideration and fast food restaurants are hiring lawyers to enforce non-compete. Mainly related to trade secrets but there is a non-disclosure agreement that works just as well. California didn't enforce non-compete for a long time. How has that really impacted anyone's life? Did anyone here feel like they were restricted under their existing restrictive covenant agreement and now they are free? Geez, the great resignation must not have happened.

The overreach by the FTC won't go into effect until late August, and there are already big carve out for policy maker positions that make over $150K (who doesn't at this point). And it is already under litigation, and the assumption is that this is a clear overreach by the FTC again going beyond their expressed authority to override the constitution. Shocking that after EPA vs W VA that they think this will stand.

Who here is currently subject to non-compete? I assume no one.

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

chazzed said:

---

A couple of wins for the American worker:

Two huge wins by Biden today that the corporate media will bury, while reporting every one of Donald's in-court gestures and out-of-court lies:

1. Biden just secured BILLIONS of dollars for workers. He's guaranteeing they get time-and-a-half for overtime worked – anyone who… pic.twitter.com/T5J7Gduhk6

— Mary L. Trump (@MaryLTrump) April 23, 2024

---

We don't want to hear about practical government that helps people because BIDEN LOOKS OLD!

---

On the non-compete, it's the stupidest thing I ever heard something arguing that fast food workers were prevented from working for competitors. Really? Minimum wage workers are signing restrictive covenants requiring consideration and fast food restaurants are hiring lawyers to enforce non-compete. Mainly related to trade secrets but there is a non-disclosure agreement that works just as well. California didn't enforce non-compete for a long time. How has that really impacted anyone's life? Did anyone here feel like they were restricted under their existing restrictive covenant agreement and now they are free? Geez, the great resignation must not have happened.

The overreach by the FTC won't go into effect until late August, and there are already big carve out for policy maker positions that make over $150K (who doesn't at this point). And it is already under litigation, and the assumption is that this is a clear overreach by the FTC again going beyond their expressed authority to override the constitution. Shocking that after EPA vs W VA that they think this will stand.

Who here is currently subject to non-compete? I assume no one.

---

I think the carve out for execs is only for existing agreements. As for who here is under a non-compete, at one point following an acquisition I (along with everyone else at our company) was "subject" to one that would have been enforceable had I not been in California. It's not uncommon to see these across the board, even at tech companies.

Didn't your hedge fund subject traders to non-competes?

As for fast-food workers, I would hope they wouldn't have been subject to any restrictive covenants to begin with, and I have a hard time understanding how it would be reasonable to do so, but I've never looked into the question.

From what I have surmised based on the prevalence in the case law I've been exposed to from talking to my law firm "non-compete guys", this very frequently is an issue for doctors and dentists who often agree to restrictive covenants with their medical groups.

Fed survey reveals 11% of workers report having a non-compete. That was higher than I expected. Enforceability is probably questionable for a lot of them but anything that prevents those workers from having to seek legal advice is a good thing.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2023/new-data-on-non-compete-contracts-and-what-they-mean-for-workers

GDP at 1.6% vs 2.5% expected.

PCE at 3.7% (core) for Q1 vs 2.0% for Q4.

10-Year Yield: 4.70% (was as high as 4.73% this morning)

Looks like stagflation on the rise.

Reporting after the Bell today:

MSFT
GOOGL
INTC

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

chazzed said:

---

A couple of wins for the American worker:

Two huge wins by Biden today that the corporate media will bury, while reporting every one of Donald's in-court gestures and out-of-court lies:

1. Biden just secured BILLIONS of dollars for workers. He's guaranteeing they get time-and-a-half for overtime worked – anyone who… pic.twitter.com/T5J7Gduhk6

— Mary L. Trump (@MaryLTrump) April 23, 2024

---

We don't want to hear about practical government that helps people because BIDEN LOOKS OLD!

---

On the non-compete, it's the stupidest thing I ever heard something arguing that fast food workers were prevented from working for competitors. Really? Minimum wage workers are signing restrictive covenants requiring consideration and fast food restaurants are hiring lawyers to enforce non-compete. Mainly related to trade secrets but there is a non-disclosure agreement that works just as well. California didn't enforce non-compete for a long time. How has that really impacted anyone's life? Did anyone here feel like they were restricted under their existing restrictive covenant agreement and now they are free? Geez, the great resignation must not have happened.

The overreach by the FTC won't go into effect until late August, and there are already big carve out for policy maker positions that make over $150K (who doesn't at this point). And it is already under litigation, and the assumption is that this is a clear overreach by the FTC again going beyond their expressed authority to override the constitution. Shocking that after EPA vs W VA that they think this will stand.

Who here is currently subject to non-compete? I assume no one.

---

I think the carve out for execs is only for existing agreements. As for who here is under a non-compete, at one point following an acquisition I (along with everyone else at our company) was "subject" to one that would have been enforceable had I not been in California. It's not uncommon to see these across the board, even at tech companies.

Didn't your hedge fund subject traders to non-competes?

As for fast-food workers, I would hope they wouldn't have been subject to any restrictive covenants to begin with, and I have a hard time understanding how it would be reasonable to do so, but I've never looked into the question.

From what I have surmised based on the prevalence in the case law I've been exposed to from talking to my law firm "non-compete guys", this very frequently is an issue for doctors and dentists who often agree to restrictive covenants with their medical groups.

---

True on the execs. No new non-competes but existing ones can be enforced. And still a carve-out for non-compete and non-solicit related to sale of assets/business.

It wouldn't make any sense to subject non-compete for fast-food workers. No benefit. So the tweet stating that companies can no longer subject fast food workers to non-compete is just typical spreading of ignorance.

For hedge funds, it was more about non-solicitation and about non-disclosure. Beyond contract enforcement is reputation in a small hedge fund community. In addition, protection of trade secret, with proprietary information, formulas, algorithms the most valuable, is still valid. Don't see this really impacting anyone. You don't see hedge funds trying to stop or enforce non-compete because most of it is about reputation and not wanting clients to withdraw by acting like it hurts to lose anyone. And people are stuck based on their profit share than any non-compete.

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

DiabloWags said:

---

GDP at 1.6% vs 2.5% expected.

PCE at 3.7% (core) for Q1 vs 2.0% for Q4.

10-Year Yield: 4.70% (was as high as 4.73% this morning)

Looks like stagflation on the rise.

Reporting after the Bell today:

MSFT
GOOGL
INTC

---

PMI still below 50. China growth almost nil. Looking at cyclicals and short-cycle industrials (the canary in the mine), demand and growth are slowing but inflation still stubborn.

I know pseudo experts (i.e., google searchers) keep promoting best economy and best president ever, and I know even someone knowledgeable like U2 hated my refrain that there were a lot of mixed signals, but we were never out of the woods.

The stock market has been too exuberant, with everything priced for perfection, and as I mentioned before, I was surprised that the FED still guided to 3 cuts earlier in Q1 with so much uncertainty.

I personally expect some bumps and risks elevated (with investment all about properly being rewarded for assumption of risk) relative to potential reward but a lot of uncertainty on how all this will play out. We still need some exuberance and greed out of the market.

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

---

The candidates tell you they have a non-compete? No candidate has ever told me in my years as an executive that they have a non-compete. The only ones who did were C-Suite candidates.

People who claim that the reason for California's robust tech economy is the non-compete is lying. Most of the expansion and anchoring happened before Code 16600. The reason for California's tech economy are the academic institutions in the Bay Area and the existence of anchor companies and educated work force. Litigation mainly had to do with misappropriation of trade secret and not non-compete. States like Washington and Massachusetts, and even cities like Austin, had in recent years comparable if not greater growth in tech economy than CA despite allowing non-compete because of academic institutions like MIT, anchor tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, etc.

Bummer GDP report. We'll see if a trend develops. One crazy number - cost of portfolio management and investment advisory services jumped 31.8%. Money managers out there are wilding.
https://www.investors.com/news/economy/federal-reserve-inflation-rate-core-pce-gdp-q1-sp-500/

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

---

The candidates tell you they have a non-compete? No candidate has ever told me in my years as an executive that they have a non-compete. The only ones who did were C-Suite candidates.

---

Yes, and I've read their agreements. Multiple people, well below C-Suite. Obviously never from California.

We aren't talking about public company NEOs, we are talking about mid-level manager types making a few hundred per year.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

States like Washington and Massachusetts, and even cities like Austin, had in recent years comparable if not greater growth in tech economy than CA despite allowing non-compete because of academic institutions like MIT, anchor tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, etc.

---

---

---

This is not exactly apples to apples. A lot of the growth is from people leaving from California who aren't subject to non-competes. Recent trends does not prove that the historical absence of non-competes in California was not good for the economy.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

---

The candidates tell you they have a non-compete? No candidate has ever told me in my years as an executive that they have a non-compete. The only ones who did were C-Suite candidates.

---

Yes, and I've read their agreements. Multiple people, well below C-Suite. Obviously never from California.

We aren't talking about public company NEOs, we are talking about mid-level manager types making a few hundred per year.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

States like Washington and Massachusetts, and even cities like Austin, had in recent years comparable if not greater growth in tech economy than CA despite allowing non-compete because of academic institutions like MIT, anchor tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, etc.

---

---

---

This is not exactly apples to apples. A lot of the growth is from people leaving from California who aren't subject to non-competes. Recent trends does not prove that the historical absence of non-competes in California was not good for the economy.

---

Must have been awhile ago since CA stopped enforcing even non-compete executed outside the state.

If it is not high profile roles, not sure why employees would disclose to potential new employers and poisoning the waters. The non-compete would be between the employee and the employer, and telling the new potential new employer is just bringing them into the dispute for tortious interference. Telling the new employer does not provide any shield for breach of non-compete. The C-Suite is a bit more sensitive since it's public, high profile with the former employer more motivated, and more potential for embarrassment. Generally the dispute (e.g., Uber and Google) is about misappropriation of trade secret. Confidentiality obligations are still enforceable including prohibition not only on disclosure but also use.

Again, Washington growing in tech economy faster than CA indicates the importance of anchor companies more so than regulation. If anything, the over regulation, including wage and hour, etc. is a negative when considering where to expand than a positive, just like it is for Europe.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

---

The candidates tell you they have a non-compete? No candidate has ever told me in my years as an executive that they have a non-compete. The only ones who did were C-Suite candidates.

---

Yes, and I've read their agreements. Multiple people, well below C-Suite. Obviously never from California.

We aren't talking about public company NEOs, we are talking about mid-level manager types making a few hundred per year.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

States like Washington and Massachusetts, and even cities like Austin, had in recent years comparable if not greater growth in tech economy than CA despite allowing non-compete because of academic institutions like MIT, anchor tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, etc.

---

---

---

This is not exactly apples to apples. A lot of the growth is from people leaving from California who aren't subject to non-competes. Recent trends does not prove that the historical absence of non-competes in California was not good for the economy.

---

Must have been awhile ago since CA stopped enforcing even non-compete executed outside the state.

If it is not high profile roles, not sure why employees would disclose to potential new employers and poisoning the waters. The non-compete would be between the employee and the employer, and telling the new potential new employer is just bringing them into the dispute for tortious interference. Telling the new employer does not provide any shield for breach of non-compete. The C-Suite is a bit more sensitive since it's public, high profile with the former employer more motivated, and more potential for embarrassment. Generally the dispute (e.g., Uber and Google) is about misappropriation of trade secret. Confidentiality obligations are still enforceable including prohibition not only on disclosure but also use.

---

This was within the last few years and it was for hires outside of California, in the same state where the non-compete was written. Until 2023, the CA B&P code didn't prohibit out of state non-competes from being enforced in CA but it does now. Until mid 2022, Microsoft had non-competes in place for its software developers (and many others) and enforced them. About 20 years ago, there was a big case where MS tried to enforce a non-compete in Washington state court against an employee who had moved to Google in California, but there are plenty of other examples.

As for employees disclosing their restrictions to future employers, the agreements require them to do so. Also most form invention assignment agreements I've seen (and I've seen quite a few in my career), require incoming employees to disclose any restrictive covenants. It's also been true at every company I've worked for. Even if an agreement were unenforceable, there is this "terroristic" effect where people fear they may be bound by the restrictions and don't want to take risk.

The companies I've worked for have not been looking for a shield for breach of a non-compete and don't want to get mired in expensive and distracting litigation, especially for a rank and file employee.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting but it sounds like an uncompensated risk to take. If the FTC is able to actually kill non-competes nationwide for most employees, it could create an interesting new dynamic in the labor market I care about most (technology businesses) but it's too soon for me to have a sense as to how much it will impact me and my business at the moment.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, really, who here is benefitting from this even if it were to go into effect? Anyone here? I highly doubt it.

---

If it goes into effect, it will make it easier for me to hire people. I've had several candidates in the past who we didn't hire because they had a non-compete and we didn't want to litigate it.

A lot of people attribute California's robust tech economy at least in some part to the prohibition on non-competes. If this does go into effect, it will be interesting to see what the research shoes in terms of impact.

---

The candidates tell you they have a non-compete? No candidate has ever told me in my years as an executive that they have a non-compete. The only ones who did were C-Suite candidates.

---

Yes, and I've read their agreements. Multiple people, well below C-Suite. Obviously never from California.

We aren't talking about public company NEOs, we are talking about mid-level manager types making a few hundred per year.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

States like Washington and Massachusetts, and even cities like Austin, had in recent years comparable if not greater growth in tech economy than CA despite allowing non-compete because of academic institutions like MIT, anchor tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, etc.

---

---

---

This is not exactly apples to apples. A lot of the growth is from people leaving from California who aren't subject to non-competes. Recent trends does not prove that the historical absence of non-competes in California was not good for the economy.

---

Must have been awhile ago since CA stopped enforcing even non-compete executed outside the state.

If it is not high profile roles, not sure why employees would disclose to potential new employers and poisoning the waters. The non-compete would be between the employee and the employer, and telling the new potential new employer is just bringing them into the dispute for tortious interference. Telling the new employer does not provide any shield for breach of non-compete. The C-Suite is a bit more sensitive since it's public, high profile with the former employer more motivated, and more potential for embarrassment. Generally the dispute (e.g., Uber and Google) is about misappropriation of trade secret. Confidentiality obligations are still enforceable including prohibition not only on disclosure but also use.

Again, Washington growing in tech economy faster than CA indicates the importance of anchor companies more so than regulation. If anything, the over regulation, including wage and hour, etc. is a negative when considering where to expand than a positive, just like it is for Europe.

---

Sounds like you have more experience on this than I do. Our practice had been to include in our standard restrictive covenant agreement with carve-out as needed. Didn't have obligation to inform other companies - that would seem chilling and require determination on competition. However, as I mentioned, had never come up in my experience so will defer to you.

dajo9 said:

---

Fox News: "this is as good as it gets" while the guy on screen is visibly about to break into MAGA tears.

Liberal economic policies work. Clinton proved it. Obama's Obamacare proved it (too bad he bought into austerity). Biden is proving it. You know what will be coming next? Surprise beats on the deficit. In 20 years every conservative you know will be calling Biden a conservative (and saying they never supported that Loser Traitor Trump).

We’re sorry this is happening to you, @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/8erZgRFPZ4

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) February 2, 2024

---

Well that didn't take long

• Quote:

  ---

  Strong economy, job market boost tax receipts, curb debt sales

  ---

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/a-drought-of-treasury-bills-risks-muddying-the-end-of-fed-s-qt?srnd=homepage-americas

dajo9 said:

---

We have ~6 million more jobs now than before Covid. Biden's worst year on jobs is better than Trump's best year.

---

Are we counting the same jobs that were lost during Covid?